More Great Announcing - ( Video)

[TXMike]

As long as they have a microphone, we will have entertainment...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kNenKWoyDPw

[Chester]

Do we not think this is a horse collar tackle?

[TXMike]

No, we KNOW it is NOT a horse collar tackle under NCAA rules

[Welpe]

He rode him at least 5-6 yards before the pull down.  I'd say that does not qualify as immediate.

[Chester]

My flag would've been flying high on this one and a correct call would've been given. 

[TXMike]

According to which set of rules?

[Chester]

I think this is a foul all day long in any set of rules.  Pee wee to NFL.  Please don't quote the rule.  This is a tackling technique that causes injuries.  Therefore it's a foul.  You spend more time defending why you didn't call it.  If you call this, nobody says a word.  Not just the announcers, but supervisors, fellow officials and granny in the 77th row. 

[TXMike]

Have you seen any of the CFO videos on this?   There have been examples just like this of a player bveing ridden and the guidance is...no foul.

[Welpe]

Please don't quote the rule. 

Oh my.

[Chester]

No I haven't. 

[TXMike]

Try it some time because that is what the supervisors are using, and what your fellow officials should be using.  As for the commontatertots on TV and granny in the stands, who cares?

[Chester]

Don't need to.  This is a foul for a horse collar tackle. 

[ref6983]

This is absolutely a foul for a horse collar tackle. The tackler is inside the collar and he is doing nothing other than attempting to take the runner to the ground at that very moment. Just because they are running at a high speed and the runner advances several yards before he finally buckles does not mitigate the fact that the tackler jerks the runner to the ground using the back of the collar.

The CFO videos in which they say the tackle is not immediate have one of two mitigating factors beyond immediacy:

1. The tackler does something else as they run such as wrapping the runner up and tackling him mostly with that action, or
2. Runs with him for several yards with the hand inside the collar but no pulling action at all. This is not a foul because it gives the runner time to protect himself from being jerked down.

Here everything the tackler does from the moment he gets his hand inside the collar until the runner eventually goes down is a continuous action that is a foul.

[GoodScout]

I think if I were training officials, coaches and players on horse collar tackles, this is the film I would use.
=

[110]

I would be most interested in hearing the post-game eval, let's just say that, huh?

PS: HC by my (Canuck) standards.

[BankerRef]

This is absolutely a foul for a horse collar tackle. The tackler is inside the collar and he is doing nothing other than attempting to take the runner to the ground at that very moment. Just because they are running at a high speed and the runner advances several yards before he finally buckles does not mitigate the fact that the tackler jerks the runner to the ground using the back of the collar.

The CFO videos in which they say the tackle is not immediate have one of two mitigating factors beyond immediacy:

1. The tackler does something else as they run such as wrapping the runner up and tackling him mostly with that action, or
2. Runs with him for several yards with the hand inside the collar but no pulling action at all. This is not a foul because it gives the runner time to protect himself from being jerked down.

Here everything the tackler does from the moment he gets his hand inside the collar until the runner eventually goes down is a continuous action that is a foul.

He runs with this player for well over 5 yards, probably closer to 8, after initial contact and attempts to wrap him up and pull with the other hand prior to the pull down by the collar.  The runner clearly had enough time to know he was there and protect himself.  I'm with Mike and the two covering officials on this one.  No flag, this is not immediate. 

The last clip on the 2011 CFO Game Video Review #2 has commentary from Rogers Redding on a similar no call with even less riding before the pull down. It will be interesting to see if this play makes the review in a couple of weeks.

[ref6983]

He runs with this player for well over 5 yards, probably closer to 8, after initial contact and attempts to wrap him up and pull with the other hand prior to the pull down by the collar.  The runner clearly had enough time to know he was there and protect himself.  I'm with Mike and the two covering officials on this one.  No flag, this is not immediate. 

The last clip on the 2011 CFO Game Video Review #2 has commentary from Rogers Redding on a similar no call with even less riding before the pull down. It will be interesting to see if this play makes the review in a couple of weeks.

He tries to grab an arm and then grabs the collar. Once he does gets his hand inside the coller he makes no steps at all and really just drags his feet as he tries to pull the runner down from behind.

Those who don't want a horse collar here are being overly technical in there attempt to justify not throwing a flag. The horse collar rule  was put in for the safety of the runner and this action meets the spirit of what the rules committee is trying to eliminate. Man up and throw the flag. Any coordinator who wouldn't support this would be very foolish.

[zebra99]

I just watched CFO video 2 and the last two clips are not about horse collars.  Clip 29 is but the flag was picked up because the horse collar wasn't grabbed - different reason.

Is there another clip on the CFO video?

I'd sure like to see RR weigh in on this one as it does appear to be a HTC but for whatever the official interpretation of "immediately" which I'm still not clear on.  The action subjects the runner to the exact kind of injury the HTC is designed to prevent, don't you think?

It seems to me that jerking a playing down hard by the horse collar ought to be a foul regardless of how long the tackler was in contact.  It's the quick and immediate jerking down and backward while the ball carrier is running forward that exposes him to injury.

[PSK]

I'd sure like to see RR weigh in on this one as it does appear to be a HTC but for whatever the official interpretation of "immediately" which I'm still not clear on.  The action does subject the runner to the exact kind of injury the HTC is designed to prevent, don't you think?

It seems to me that jerking a playing down hard by the horse collar ought to be a foul regardless of how long the tackler was in contact.  It's that jerking while the ball carrier is running forward that exposes him to injury.

I agree.

[Mike L]

This particular play brings to question is the "immediate" after the grasp of the collar or when the tackler actually makes a pull? The grasp itself can be pretty inconsequential if the tackler simply runs with the ball carrier, it's the pull that possibly creates the problem.
I find the comments amounting to "the runner had time to protect himself" somewhat odd. The runner is supposed to "protect himself" from the illegal actions of the tackler? Of course I also find it odd so many seem to go far out of their way to find a reason not to call a contact safety foul but will jump at the slightest provocation to hit someone for unsportsmanlike conduct.

[TxSkyBolt]

This particular play brings to question is the "immediate" after the grasp of the collar or when the tackler actually makes a pull? The grasp itself can be pretty inconsequential if the tackler simply runs with the ball carrier, it's the pull that possibly creates the problem.
I find the comments amounting to "the runner had time to protect himself" somewhat odd. The runner is supposed to "protect himself" from the illegal actions of the tackler? Of course I also find it odd so many seem to go far out of their way to find a reason not to call a contact safety foul but will jump at the slightest provocation to hit someone for unsportsmanlike conduct.

+1

[TXMike]

The "ball carrier" occupies a special position in the game.  By agreeing to be the "ball carrier" he agrees to subject himself to all kinds of mayhem and assault that he would not be legally subject to were he not the "ball carrier."  Yes, there are some things the rulemakers put in there to make his life a bit easier but they have not outlawed other types of hits on him that are potentially more dangerous than a horse collar tackle.  So since they have decided to make a horse collar tackle a foul, they had to be very clear about just what was and was not a horse collar tackle.  All the bulletins and videos I have seen coming from on high seem to make it clear that if the grasp and pull are not immediate it is not a foul. 

If a tackler used his shoulder and drove it into a ball carrier's helmet, would you call that a foul?

Comparing this "horse collar"  to uns conduct is apples and oranges.  The acts that are covered under uns conduct are NOT part of the game.  Tackling a ball carrier is part of the game. 

And for what its worth...the play right before this one in the game was a punt return where at least one of the covering officials tweeted it dead after seeing the returner point before receiving the kick.  The ACC coordinator publicly indicated that was an incorrect call.  There has been even more chit chat in ACC land over this "horse collar" and the ACC did not say it should have been flagged so I think we can assume what their take is.

[Mike L]

Of course the ball carrier occupies a special position. But that doesn't mean he has to take steps to prevent the tacklers from committing illegal actions. It's the tackler's respsonsibility to avoid doing things that are illegal. Saying the runner "had time to protect himself" because the tackler has grasped the collar but runs with him before pulling would be like saying the runner should have protected himself when a tackler grasps the face mask and then runs with him a while before he yanks on that mask. My question remains, is the intent of the "immediate" part of the rule to be from when the grasp is made or from when the pull is made? All the videos I remember were presented with the grasp and pull being almost simultaneous, it's the delay in bringing him down after the grasp and pull that seemed to negate the foul.

I agree there are plenty of legal hits the runner can take that are potentially far more dangerous to the runner than a HCT. Shoulder to the head of the ball carrier being illegal? Maybe if I deem him to be in a defenseless possition. Does it seem odd to me a shoulder to head hit is ok but a head to head hit is not? Yes. I'll bet we will soon be in a situation where any head shot anywhere will be illegal, but that's probably a different discussion.

I don't think I "compared" the HCT to an US call. What I did state was I found it odd that some officials are quite willing to find an excuse not to call contact safety fouls but are more than willing to call the US foul with the slightest provocation. That's not comparing fouls, that's questioning official decision making.

[TXMike]

Are you referring specifically to the call on the LSU punter, a call that has now publicly been deemed correct by the Rules Editor and head of the CFO?

[Mike L]

I'm referring to a general feeling I get reading this board.